3 ms·

I've been following this story since 2015 and the same incomplete story (only the most salacious parts, none of the context or criticism) keeps getting recycled

by modzu 6y ago

I've been following this story since 2015 and the same incomplete story (only the most salacious parts, none of the context or criticism) keeps getting recycled by the media over and over and over

rrmm 6y ago
There isn't much more than the salacious bits is there?
- lucas_membrane 6y ago
  There may be some substrate of psychology at work on the US Navy aircraft carriers. Those are amongst the biggest and baddest machines of death ever -- floating cities of death, powerful enough to act like kings of the world if invulnerable. There is reason to fear that carriers cannot successfully defend themselves against a large swarm of drones, and it is entirely possible that several other countries are doing serious R&D to thereby end the reign of the carriers as masters of the seas.
  - rrmm 6y ago
    Carriers have always been relatively vulnerable. That's why they have picket ships and carrier groups. I'm not sure drones increase that. They might lower the barrier to entry for an attack. But considering the barrier is a small boat with a bomber a la USS Cole attack. It'll be interesting to see if/how CIWS will be adapted.
  - throw1234651234 6y ago
    A drone is unlikely to be a threat to a carrier battle group. Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. The only legitimate threats to carrier battle groups are supersonic Anti ship missiles (AShMs), such as the USSR P-800, the Brahmos 2, etc. These come in low (under the CBGs radar horizon) and fast on final approach to ship and maneuver. They can be nuclear-tipped. Right now the defense pattern is this: * There is an AWACS plane off of the carrier providing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar coverage. * Once it detects a missile, the info is data-linked to the AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier * These fire anti-missile missiles (SM-6 and similar) * If missiles get through, close range missiles, radar chaff is deployed, and CIWS miniguns spray the target (or chaff released by friendlies, and consequently the friendlies) * As a last line of defense, the carrier itself has some CIWS There has been no true demonstration of AshMs being stopped in any significant number.
    - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
      Torpedoes? Why not make a submersible sea drone that surfaces and fires middles? Mirv warheads? Modern states can deter carriers outside their useful range. And there will always be a drone strategy deadly enough and far cheaper to take out capital surface ships. And in a real war, our weapons are so expensive that just getting us to use them on anything is an economic victory
    - lucas_membrane 6y ago
      > Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. Quantity has a quality all its own. > AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier If you do not know how large or small the drones may be, you may have to protect against attacks from within that perimeter. Regardless, for the point of view of the current discussion, the question is not whether you are correct, it is whether or not the Navy people have reasons to stay up at night worrying that you may not be 100% correct, worrying at least enough to lose a little of their rationality when dealing with a new situation that they are unable to explain. Skeptics say that extraordinary explanations require extraordinary evidence and that normally only normal things happen. But that kind of thinking may not prevail when one is trained to believe the multi-billion dollar radar no matter how odd the display appears and no matter how many layers of software and hardware between the antenna and the display must work together flawlessly to put that image on the screen. Particularly when your own life, thousands of others, and everything you are working for may be at stake.

by modzu 6y ago

I've been following this story since 2015 and the same incomplete story (only the most salacious parts, none of the context or criticism) keeps getting recycled by the media over and over and over

rrmm 6y ago

There isn't much more than the salacious bits is there?

lucas_membrane 6y ago
There may be some substrate of psychology at work on the US Navy aircraft carriers. Those are amongst the biggest and baddest machines of death ever -- floating cities of death, powerful enough to act like kings of the world if invulnerable. There is reason to fear that carriers cannot successfully defend themselves against a large swarm of drones, and it is entirely possible that several other countries are doing serious R&D to thereby end the reign of the carriers as masters of the seas.
- rrmm 6y ago
  Carriers have always been relatively vulnerable. That's why they have picket ships and carrier groups. I'm not sure drones increase that. They might lower the barrier to entry for an attack. But considering the barrier is a small boat with a bomber a la USS Cole attack. It'll be interesting to see if/how CIWS will be adapted.
- throw1234651234 6y ago
  A drone is unlikely to be a threat to a carrier battle group. Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. The only legitimate threats to carrier battle groups are supersonic Anti ship missiles (AShMs), such as the USSR P-800, the Brahmos 2, etc. These come in low (under the CBGs radar horizon) and fast on final approach to ship and maneuver. They can be nuclear-tipped. Right now the defense pattern is this: * There is an AWACS plane off of the carrier providing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar coverage. * Once it detects a missile, the info is data-linked to the AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier * These fire anti-missile missiles (SM-6 and similar) * If missiles get through, close range missiles, radar chaff is deployed, and CIWS miniguns spray the target (or chaff released by friendlies, and consequently the friendlies) * As a last line of defense, the carrier itself has some CIWS There has been no true demonstration of AshMs being stopped in any significant number.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    Torpedoes? Why not make a submersible sea drone that surfaces and fires middles? Mirv warheads? Modern states can deter carriers outside their useful range. And there will always be a drone strategy deadly enough and far cheaper to take out capital surface ships. And in a real war, our weapons are so expensive that just getting us to use them on anything is an economic victory
  - lucas_membrane 6y ago
    > Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. Quantity has a quality all its own. > AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier If you do not know how large or small the drones may be, you may have to protect against attacks from within that perimeter. Regardless, for the point of view of the current discussion, the question is not whether you are correct, it is whether or not the Navy people have reasons to stay up at night worrying that you may not be 100% correct, worrying at least enough to lose a little of their rationality when dealing with a new situation that they are unable to explain. Skeptics say that extraordinary explanations require extraordinary evidence and that normally only normal things happen. But that kind of thinking may not prevail when one is trained to believe the multi-billion dollar radar no matter how odd the display appears and no matter how many layers of software and hardware between the antenna and the display must work together flawlessly to put that image on the screen. Particularly when your own life, thousands of others, and everything you are working for may be at stake.